The Real Outcomes of BLM

[Dawgfather]

Also in response to your request for research on unarmed people shot by police by race

Deaths Due to Use of Lethal Force by Law Enforcement: Findings From the National Violent Death Reporting System, 17 U.S. States, 2009–2012 - PMC

Several high-profile cases in the U.S. have drawn public attention to the use of lethal force by law enforcement (LE), yet research on such fatalities is limited. Using data from a public health surveillance system, this study examined the ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Cheers will have a read of this today.

Does the study consider whether the unarmed individuals were threatening police at the time ? (For example grabbing for a police gun)

How would a study such as this have considered Rayshard Brooks? Would he have been classified as unarmed (because he didn't initially have a weapon) or as armed (because he stole a police taser and attempted to shoot them with it)?

 

[Utility]

Cheers will have a read of this today.

Does the study consider whether the unarmed individuals were threatening police at the time ? (For example grabbing for a police gun)

How would a study such as this have considered Rayshard Brooks? Would he have been classified as unarmed (because he didn't initially have a weapon) or as armed (because he stole a police taser and attempted to shoot them with it)?

Black victims were significantly more likely to be unarmed than white or Hispanic victims. Black victims were also significantly less likely than whites to have posed an immediate threat to LE.

At least read the study before you start justification fishing.

 

[Dawgfather]

Black victims were significantly more likely to be unarmed than white or Hispanic victims. Black victims were also significantly less likely than whites to have posed an immediate threat to LE.

At least read the study before you start justification fishing.

No need for the attitude. I said I would read the article today, and asked a question in the mean time.

I haven't read the study yet, but will likely read majority of it by tonight.

 

[Utility]

No need for the attitude. I said I would read the article today, and asked a question in the mean time.

I haven't read the study yet, but will likely read majority of it by tonight.

You say attitude, I say a fair and apt description of what you are doing. The fact you are asking questions which are all slanted towards a certain ideological bias before even taking the time to read the study is a clear indication of your closed minded approach to processing new information.

 

[Dawgfather]

I asked a question because the initial assertion by Hacky was that unarmed black people are disproportionately shot by police. If you don't ask questions, you'll never get the real answer. If you just take it on face value you say "yeah that is really racist".

But if you really want to know what's going on you'll need to work out:

- Definition of unarmed the researchers used
- Definition of whether or not someone presents a 'threat' to officers
- The locations the shootings happened (it is possible that police officers shoot people in high crime neighbourhoods because they are so on edge). Black people may be more likely to live in a high crime neighbourhood (I don't know this, but just as a hypothetical). In this scenario blacks would not be shot more often because they are black. They would be shot more often because they live in high crime neighbourhoods.

As I said, I haven't read the study yet, but I'm open minded to it's conclusions.

 

[Utility]

I asked a question because the initial assertion by Hacky was that unarmed black people are disproportionately shot by police. If you don't ask questions, you'll never get the real answer. If you just take it on face value you say "yeah that is really racist".

But if you really want to know what's going on you'll need to work out:

- Definition of unarmed the researchers used
- Definition of whether or not someone presents a 'threat' to officers
- The locations the shootings happened (it is possible that police officers shoot people in high crime neighbourhoods because they are so on edge). Black people may be more likely to live in a high crime neighbourhood (I don't know this, but just as a hypothetical). In this scenario blacks would not be shot more often because they are black. They would be shot more often because they live in high crime neighbourhoods.

As I said, I haven't read the study yet, but I'm open minded to it's conclusions.

Lol my point is pretty simple - if you were really fair and open minded, you wouldn't only ask questions which denote a predisposition to a clear ideological bias....especially before reading the study. You don't apply that same open minded attitude of inquiry to your favourite talking points such as black on black crime. You're pretty transparent.

 

[Dawgfather]

Lol my point is pretty simple - if you were really fair and open minded, you wouldn't only ask questions which denote a predisposition to a clear ideological bias....especially before reading the study. You don't apply that same open minded attitude of inquiry to your favourite talking points such as black on black crime. You're pretty transparent.

The premise Hacky put up was generally negative on Law enforcement so of course the questions to ask are those which could reveal an alternative conclusion.

If someone puts up a premise that is the opposite angle, the relevant questions to ask are those which could reveal the opposite. For example if you put up a study suggesting that black people commit crimes at rates exceeding other ethnicities, the relevant question is whether this is because they are really poor. The next question is whether poverty determines crime rates.

 

[CaptainJackson]

The premise Hacky put up was generally negative on Law enforcement so of course the questions to ask are those which could reveal an alternative conclusion.

If someone puts up a premise that is the opposite angle, the relevant questions to ask are those which could reveal the opposite. For example if you put up a study suggesting that black people commit crimes at rates exceeding other ethnicities, the relevant question is whether this is because they are really poor. The next question is whether poverty determines crime rates.

The next question is how racist arr you?

Hillbilly Hick, or kkk, or hitler fanboi

 

[Utility]

If someone puts up a premise that is the opposite angle, the relevant questions to ask are those which could reveal the opposite. For example if you put up a study suggesting that black people commit crimes at rates exceeding other ethnicities, the relevant question is whether this is because they are really poor. The next question is whether poverty determines crime rates.

You never ask these questions unless you're called out on your bias. I wish I had a dollar for every time you have used the subject of black on black crime to discredit BLM by suggesting activists should be focused on fixing these problems rather than protesting systemic racism without even entertaining the notion that systemic racism and cycles of poverty may contribute to those disproportionate statistics. People who comment on this thread aren't stupid, so you may as well just abandon the pretense. Nobody buys into the idea you are the open minded free thinker you present yourself as.

 

[Dawgfather]

You never ask these questions unless you're called out on your bias. I wish I had a dollar for every time you have used the subject of black on black crime to discredit BLM by suggesting activists should be focused on fixing these problems rather than protesting systemic racism without even entertaining the notion that systemic racism and cycles of poverty may contribute to those disproportionate statistics. People who comment on this thread aren't stupid, so you may as well just abandon the pretense. Nobody bias into the idea you are the open minded free thinker you present yourself as.

It's my personal opinion that more headway would be made by focusing on a solution to black on black crime which kills black people at rates hugely exceeding than unjustified police shootings of blacks.

This doesn't mean I'm racist, it just means I have a difference of opinion to you.

I also agree more can be done (significantly more) to improve police training and execution in America, including policing of high crime and low income neighbourhoods which often see large population of black americans.

 

[Utility]

It's my personal opinion that more headway would be made by focusing on a solution to black on black crime which kills black people at rates hugely exceeding than unjustified police shootings of blacks.

This doesn't mean I'm racist, it just means I have a difference of opinion to you.

I also agree more can be done (significantly more) to improve police training and execution in America, including policing of high crime and low income neighbourhoods which often see large population of black americans.

WTF? This barely even addresses my main point - that the questions you choose to ask signpost your ideological biases. I didn't even directly call you racist, although if you're going to bring it up, I agree with Hacky, Captain Jackson, Assassin and others who have called you out on your racist double standards. You automatically blame black people for most, if not all of the civil unrest in the US and frequently blame black people for every problem affecting their communities, yet as soon as an unarmed black person is shot or killed, you immediately start fishing for some kind of rationalisation as to why it might be the corpse's fault. You go on and on about the pressures police officers face (and I don't deny for a minute they are under extreme pressure), but where's your acknowledgment of the many pressures facing members of the black community who end up making bad decisions? You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but I and others are equally entitled to the opinion that many of your opinions are racist. Let's be honest, it's not just lefties who are reaching that conclusion....so maybe....just maybe, the buck stops with you.

 

[Dawgfather]

WTF? This barely even addresses my main point - that the questions you choose to ask signpost your ideological biases. I didn't even directly call you racist, although if you're going to bring it up, I agree with Hacky, Captain Jackson, Assassin and others who have called you out on your racist double standards. You automatically blame black people for most, if not all of the civil unrest in the US and frequently blame black people for every problem affecting their communities, yet as soon as an unarmed black person is shot or killed, you immediately start fishing for some kind of rationalisation as to why it might be the corpse's fault. You go on and on about the pressures police officers face (and I don't deny for a minute they are under extreme pressure), but where's your acknowledgment of the many pressures facing members of the black community who end up making bad decisions? You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but I and others are equally entitled to the opinion that many of your opinions are racist. Let's be honest, it's not just lefties who are reaching that conclusion....so maybe....just maybe, the buck stops at you.

You can call me racist all you like, but there's no evidence for it.

You can join the club with Captain Jackson who's ability to reason and form articulate view points revolves around throwing swear words around, calling people names and throwing away the racist word to the point where it's now meaningless.

I simply disagree with you and some others on here on the best way to approach some poor social outcomes occurring within black america. I personally believe the poor social outcomes could be addressed by identifying issues within the family structure (for example the fatherless rate). Another one would be the lack of secondary education (college degrees) for young black men.

Ironically enough BLM states on their website the following:

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

Based on this I presume BLM wants to do away with nuclear families, which (IMO) would further disintegrate black america and create even worse social outcomes.

Personally I advocate for black families to be strengthened through healthy marriages. husbands and wives staying together so that black children grow up in an environment where they have both their mum and dad at home. I think this would have a huge impact on interactions between young black men and police.

 

[Dawgfather]

and to add to the above - there clearly needs to be more work done to increase the level of interactions between police and the black community in particular cities within the US. When I say interactions I mean, interactions where the police have no agenda other than interacting with the black community and both sides learning that they are both human, they all have families, parents, children and they all deserve to be treated like human beings with respect.

This needs to be initiated by police (who btw also have a long way to go in terms of police training as well as things like 100% wearing of body cams which is not the case in every state of america.

 

[Dogna88]

More footage coming out of people cheering and celebrating the two officers being shot in Compton. Disgraceful. Pathetic. Seems as though systematic racism is going hand in hand with systematic brutality.

This was cold blooded attempted murder based on a profession. There was not struggle, there was no argument of self defence or life threatening siutations. Just a stupid **** walking upto two unsuspecting humans sitting in a car amd shooting them in the face, attempting to kill them because they wear blue.

Just curious. Does anyone on TK support or have a sympathetic approach to what happened? Does anyone on TK support or sympathetic toward the people celebrating this?

I know its less likely people blink an eye at police and soldiers getting bashed or killed. Because its all apart of the system. But fuk to openly celebrate and fail to acknowledge that these people are human is evil.

 

[Memberberries]

You would have better chances of reasoning with a brick wall than a “college educated” lefty lunatic!

I’ve been spending the past week watching the young Turks meltdown videos.
You cannot reason with people who have NPD and are children trapped in adult bodies!
Or even more so you cannot reason with kids!

 

[Utility]

You can call me racist all you like, but there's no evidence for it.

You can join the club with Captain Jackson who's ability to reason and form articulate view points revolves around throwing swear words around, calling people names and throwing away the racist word to the point where it's now meaningless.

I simply disagree with you and some others on here on the best way to approach some poor social outcomes occurring within black america. I personally believe the poor social outcomes could be addressed by identifying issues within the family structure (for example the fatherless rate). Another one would be the lack of secondary education (college degrees) for young black men.

Where's the optimistic button when you need it?

1. If there's no evidence to suggest it, why are an increasing number of people calling you out on it? Never heard the term where there's smoke, there's fire?

2. Captain Jackson is perfectly capable of intelligent debate. He has just lost patience with you because you keep ignoring compelling arguments which challenge your positions, cherry pick your own arguments and are frequently passive aggressive. At least Captain Jackson's brand of overt aggression is honest. I don't know why you're singling him out anyway. There are more diplomatic posters like Hacky calling you out on it and clearly apolitical posters like Assassin calling you out on it. Once again, where there's smoke, there is fire.

Ironically enough BLM states on their website the following:


Based on this I presume BLM wants to do away with nuclear families, which (IMO) would further disintegrate black america and create even worse social outcomes.

Personally I advocate for black families to be strengthened through healthy marriages. husbands and wives staying together so that black children grow up in an environment where they have both their mum and dad at home. I think this would have a huge impact on interactions between young black men and police.

You certainly jump to some odd conclusions. All that means is they are challenging the traditional western family structure where small nuclear families are tasked with looking out for and protecting their own without much community support. They are not talking about dismantling typical family structures or taking young people away from their family units, they are talking about extending support networks by creating a village type atmosphere where community members have each other's backs. How exactly is extending support networks going to make things worse?

More footage coming out of people cheering and celebrating the two officers being shot in Compton. Disgraceful. Pathetic. Seems as though systematic racism is going hand in hand with systematic brutality.

This was cold blooded attempted murder based on a profession. There was not struggle, there was no argument of self defence or life threatening siutations. Just a stupid c*** walking upto two unsuspecting humans sitting in a car amd shooting them in the face, attempting to kill them because they wear blue.

Just curious. Does anyone on TK support or have a sympathetic approach to what happened? Does anyone on TK support or sympathetic toward the people celebrating this?

I know its less likely people blink an eye at police and soldiers getting bashed or killed. Because its all apart of the system. But fuk to openly celebrate and fail to acknowledge that these people are human is evil.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would defend the actions of the shooter, or of those who turned up outside the hospital..... behaviour like that is obviously deranged, dangerous and indefensible. The only issue people have is with some people trying to extend condemnation beyond those involved to frame the narrative that BLM is responsible for their actions. It's absurd to think BLM is stirring up this anger....these tensions have been bubbling below the surface of American society for a very long time.

 

[Dawgfather]

Where's the optimistic button when you need it?

1. If there's no evidence to suggest it, why are an increasing number of people calling you out on it? never heard the term where there's smoke, there's fire?

Its your opinion and perhaps the opinion of a few others on here. You're welcome to it, but I thoroughly disagree with it.

2. Captain Jackson is perfectly capable of intelligent debate. He has just lost patience with you because you keep ignoring compelling arguments which challenge your positions, cherry pick your own arguments and are frequently passive aggressive. At least Captain Jackson's brand of overt aggression is honest. I don't know why you're singling him out anyway. there are more diplomatic posters like Hacky calling you out on it and clearly apolitical posters like Assassin calling you out on it. Once again, where there's smoke, there is fire.

Have to agree to disagree with you on this one. Captain Jackson is a low brow, poor mans version of Hacky. But that isn't saying a lot because Dr Google isn't much more impressive himself. The personal attacks on me speak volumes.

I welcome disagreement of opinion and good debate. I don't welcome being attacked for having a different view point that challenges some people on here.

You certainly jump to some odd conclusions. All that means is they are challenging the traditional western family structure where small nuclear families are tasked with looking out for and protecting their own without much community support. They are not talking about dismantling typical family structures or taking young people away from their family units, they are talking about extending support networks by creating a village type atmosphere where community members have each others backs. How exactly is extending support networks going to make things worse?

Agree to disagree with you. My personal belief is that BLM are making some unwelcome changes to society. I'd be far more open to them as a movement if they genuinely concentrated on police violence or black on black crime (for example).

I don't think anyone in their right minds would defend the actions of the shooter, or of those who turned up outside the hospital..... behaviours like that is obviously deranged, dangerous and indefensible. The only issue people have is with some people trying to extend condemnation beyond those involved to frame the narrative that BLM is responsible for their actions. It's absurd to think BLM is stirring up this anger....these tensions have been bubbling below the surface of American society for a very long time.

I think BLM has created an environment where many people believe violence against public property and police (and anyone who disagrees publicly with BLM) is ok

(for example attempting night after night to destroy a federal courthouse)

OR destroying public monuments is Ok (you can take your pick from tens of monuments either totally destroyed, defaced or stolen across America and England and Australia alone

OR attacking cops being Ok (you can take your pick from anyone one of hundreds of incidents of attacks on police including murders of police within the last 3-4 months) - this includes (ironically enough) black police.

Or looting of shop fronts which btw disproportionately affects black and coloured shop owners.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

yes, discriminating on someone on the basis of their race. See below.

An additional study was done where different last names were used. The surnames Washington and Jefferson were given to the black CV's (90 percent of people in America with the last name Washington are black and 75% of people with Jefferson are black) and there was no significant difference in the response rate between the white and black CV's.

I agree generally with the idea that there is some level of discrimination in the hiring process. I agree generally that some of this could be due to a hiring manager's perceptions of race. But my personal belief is that there are a multitude of other factors which hiring managers are likely to discriminate on the basis of, including the following two:

- Post grad education facility (You'll find that the big 4 accounting firms in Sydney love to hire people from Sydney's north shore who went to a GPS school, and particularly those that went on to study at Sydney Uni and UNSW). This says more to me about bias on the basis of educational institution than it does about big 4 accounting firms wanting to hire white people. However, it would be easy to present this data as racist on the basis that there is a significant skewing of new hires who are white, but that overlooks other factors which I've just discussed.

- Previous company experience. Most hiring managers are more likely to hire someone from a company they have worked at previously, or at companies which are well known brand names. Many recent arrivals to Australia are not able to demonstrate this type of brand name experience. Does this mean the hiring manager is being racist? Almost definitely not. What it does mean is that hiring managers like to hire people from companies with which they are familliar.

Do you have that research you're pointing out?

I believe the research you are questioning is the National Bureau of Economics research below (correct me if I'm wrong)

Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination

Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.

www.nber.org

The follow up research I could find supported their findings

Discrimination in a Low-Wage Labor Market: A Field Experiment - PMC

Decades of racial progress have led some researchers and policymakers to doubt that discrimination remains an important cause of economic inequality. To study contemporary discrimination, we conducted a field experiment in the low-wage labor market ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Even meta-research of all the research found that similar issues still exist (2016)

https://economics.mit.edu/files/11449

and 2017

Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time

Many scholars have argued that discrimination in American society has decreased over time, while others point to persisting race and ethnic gaps and subtle forms of prejudice. The question has remained unsettled due to the indirect methods often used to assess levels of discrimination. We assess...

www.pnas.org

Finding:

We find no change in the levels of discrimination against African Americans since 1989, although we do find some indication of declining discrimination against Latinos. The results document a striking persistence of racial discrimination in US labor markets.

 

[Dawgfather]

Do you have that research you're pointing out?

I believe the research you are questioning is the National Bureau of Economics research below (correct me if I'm wrong)

Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination

Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.

www.nber.org

The follow up research I could find supported their findings

Discrimination in a Low-Wage Labor Market: A Field Experiment - PMC

Decades of racial progress have led some researchers and policymakers to doubt that discrimination remains an important cause of economic inequality. To study contemporary discrimination, we conducted a field experiment in the low-wage labor market ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Even meta-research of all the research found that similar issues still exist (2016)

https://economics.mit.edu/files/11449

and 2017

Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time

Many scholars have argued that discrimination in American society has decreased over time, while others point to persisting race and ethnic gaps and subtle forms of prejudice. The question has remained unsettled due to the indirect methods often used to assess levels of discrimination. We assess...

www.pnas.org

Finding:

We find no change in the levels of discrimination against African Americans since 1989, although we do find some indication of declining discrimination against Latinos. The results document a striking persistence of racial discrimination in US labor markets.

Will dig it out this arvo for you. In the middle of a couple of meetings now.

btw, I do agree discrimination happens in the hiring process. I'm sure sometimes it occurs on the basis of race. But I don't think it's as often as some activists claim it is. Mostly, hiring managers like to hire on the basis of familiarity (being familiar with a candidates education pathway, previous employer, country of work experience etc).

I agree that practical steps should be taken by companies to avoid this (including scrubbing names off of CVs so that hiring managers purely judge a CV based on experience, and not someones name.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Cheers will have a read of this today.

Does the study consider whether the unarmed individuals were threatening police at the time ? (For example grabbing for a police gun)

How would a study such as this have considered Rayshard Brooks? Would he have been classified as unarmed (because he didn't initially have a weapon) or as armed (because he stole a police taser and attempted to shoot them with it)?

This may answer part of your question:

Black victims were also more likely to be unarmed than whites or Hispanics, and less likely than whites to have evidence suggesting an immediate threat to LE.

Another interesting and somewhat related point from the study:

Relatedly, studies of “shooter bias” have found that both civilians and LE officers showed a greater tendency to shoot unarmed black men than white men in computer simulations